analyst of terrorism and to talk about home grown terrorists. and author of the book, putting lessons from the government in charge. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. . .

it had fd [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> joining us is texas representative joe barton. thanks for joining us. >> glad to be here. >> let me begin. what causes from your perspective global warming? >> the short answer would be god. i think it's a natural cycle. i do not believe that mankind is a dominant influence. at least on the overall climate. i do admit that the co 2 increase in the last 150 years is the result of the industrial revolution. there's no question that the

level of co 2 has gone up in that time period from around 250 parts per billion to 380. but once you get beyond that, this theerwri that theory that manmade co 2 is causing the earth to warm at a rapidly increasing rate, the data beyond dispute doesn't show that. and that's one of the problems that the climatologist that believe in global warming are having is that they can't get their models and data sets to prove their theory, and they're getting more and more opposition to those of us who way, wait a minute, we're open minded but you've got to show us the facts. so i would say we're in a natural cycle. it appears the earth is in a slight cooling period for the next 30 years. and the oceans are in a cooling period.

but the co 2 concentration's going up don't seem to be doing what the ipcc models say that they should in terms of the temperatures. >> but former vice president al gore told cnn that that analogy is unreal. he asked the question, why is the polar ice cap disappearing? where is this coming from if not from manmade pollution? >> well, i'm not impressed with vice president gore's credentials as a scientist. i'm impressed with his credentials as a policy maker and as a politician, and i'm impressed with his entrepreneurial skills to make money off of climate change. but i'm not impressed with his academic credibility. a lot of what's in his movie turned out to be false. in terms of the polar situation

there is more glayshrs that are growing than are slinking. the greenland ice cap that he has made such a deal about has been i would say that's more natural than it is man made co 2. >> carl davenport. >> your point of view is shared by a vocal but small minority in congress. and an even smaller minority on the world stage. so my question to you is, we've not heard very much from house

republicans on the issue of climate change since the house passed its climate change bill in the summer over the past week or so you and other republican leaders in the house have really been bringing this issue back up and you've made it clear that you want to travel to copenhagen and to send a message to the world that this is your point of view. my question is, who do you expect to influence and how do you expect that to change the debate especially here in washington since a climate bill has already passed the house that sort of moved on and done? the arena in washington at this point is really the senate and the those on the issue don't seem to be questioning the science. they're concerned about how a climate change or carbon reduction policy might affect their home state industries but

there doesn't seem to be a question about the science in terms of who is going to influence how this pollsy going forward. so how do you expect to influence the debate? who do you expect to persuade? >> let me go back to the premise of your question. i don't think i represent a small minority. the climate change bill barlte passed committee, barely passed the house. i think by five votes. it hasn't passed in the senate big time. in fact it's probably not going to get out of the senate. if you do an opinion pole out in the country there are more people skeptical than true believers. and the skeptics are growing, not shrinking. the so-called science is totally unsettled. and to the extent it is settled it's going the other way. so i feel pretty comfortable that i speak for the majority as opposed to speaking for the minority. i think what's happened is that the environmental activists

have kind of gone unchallenged for the last 20 years. they talk to themselves at cock tail parties, they talk to themselves at these conferences and they come to be somewhat self-righteous that anybody who tends to be somewhat show me the facts, please, is somehow we're beyond the pail. i'm a registered professional engineer. i don't practice it any more, but i learned the engineering method and skinetisk method in college. i practiced it in business before i got elected. i'm as concerned about the environment as the sow scald self-appointed environmental perfectionists but i don't want to make economic policy in the u.s. congress based on a theory that's been unpriven. and i will stipulate that this is not the biggest problem

facing mankind. it is not an immediate threat. it is probably not even a long-term threat. and if you want me to support something that reduces co 2 levels in the united states by 83% in the next 40 years, you'd better show me real facts. and that just, they can't do it. these e-mails that are now coming out shows that the people, professors, one of the leading proponents of global warming have been intentionally, at least apparently intentionally, deleting data, changing data, falsifying perhaps data. that's not skinetisk methods. so -- scientific methods. so when i go to copenhagen, i will be a part of speaker pelosi's official codel. and she is the leader and her opinion is different than mine. and she is also the speaker of

the house. so i understand that officially they're going to be very much more supportive of the process. but i will have an ability to have a minority view in that group. i was at kyoto, i was at beno airies. i was at the hage. identify been to these which frenses. but what i'm interests in is the truth. what i'm interested in is getting the facts. what i'm interested in is true, honest research. and then we'll make some policy decisions. but we certainly don't need to do that now. and it appears to me that the science that is real that is emerging is that this isn't something that we need to do draconian things to our economy to combat. >> thank you. if i may follow up on that. you mentioned a moment ago that you weren't impressed with al gore's scientific credentials.

>> i am not. >> there was a statement reaffirming what they said the overwhelming view that we are seeing human induced global warming. smim similarly, the meert logical organization has put out a statement saying the last decade has been the hottest on record. and you've had several scientists saying even casting aside the data you've got a lot of data from noaa, from nasa showing similar upward trends. are you similarly sort of unimpressed with all those scientific credentials? >> i would just encourage you and your colleagues to really look at the data. there are just as many data sets that show temperature in the local areas in the united states going down in the last 150 years as they are going up. all these institutions that you

just mentioned, one, i think they're credible. i'm a supporter of research and funding of those institutions. but, again, when you look at the e-mails, there are people in each of those institutions that are in this collective group that have apparently been engaged in a somewhat systemic effort to manipulate or change or delete data that didn't agree with their theory. now, that's wrong. when you call in to question the very data that people like myself need to depend upon, i mean, i can have a disagreement or a policy disagreement with congressman marky or congressman ensly or vice president gore. but we all ought to agree on the data set. we all ought to agree that the facts are the facts. we can't do that now. and when you get into it, what

is average temperature? some of the data sets are taking surface temperature. some of the data sets are taking temperature in the mid atmosphere. and some of them are taking temperature data in the upper atmosphere. those don't agree. and so when the scientific community that believes in the theory begins to pick and choose which data set and which end point and how they come up with the definition of average, if they're doing that in a way to simply so that it support as conclusion that they've already arrived at, i think the public needs to know about that. you know, when you say the last decade is the warmest on record, there appear to be very good data sets that say the temperature has gone down eight years in a row and maybe as many as 12 years in a row. so how do you reconcile that? i don't have the answer to that. but the answer is not to just assume that the alarmists are

right and take these steps they want us to take. >> when the wmo report came out very recently they made a couple of different points. one is they're looking again at multiple data sets and peer review data, not just the e-mails. and in addition to that, they did find that 2009 is likely to be the fifth in the warmest years on record. i'm still a little puzzled by how so many scientists across such a spectrum in your view could have all gotten it so wrong. >> well, if they all believe in the theory and they're funded and they're part of a group that it's in their academic professional career to prove that theory right, they can kind of brain wash themselves. now, i'm not saying they've done that. but i'm saying that's a fair question.

and the more that comes out, the more relevant that question becomes. >> are they brain washing americans? >> i think some of them have tried to. i certainly -- i mean, when you read -- again, when you look at some of these e-mails and they say so and so is apparently gone over to the dark side and we may have to get him removed as -- in his current position because he's not with us any more, i think that's troublesome. i mean, the true scientific method you put your theory out there and then you put your data out there in an open, transparent fashion and have people either try to prove it wrong or have them replicate it and prove it right. that's not happened in the climate issue. the ipcc models, there are a number of them burks they're all developed by the same people and they all have the same basic assumptions. and they've all been wrong.

they keep predicting temperatures going up and up, and somewhat up in a an escalating fashion, and that's simply is not happening. so at some point in time you either have to change your theory, admit it's wrong, or admit it's not a scientific theory, it's some sort of an ideology. >> you talk about the ipcc scientists, and as you're aware, that's a panel of about 2,000 scientists and experts representing different governments and institutions from around the world. generally, many of them are funded by scientific and academic institutions. >> primarily by government. >> but bringing to bear a wide variety of different perspectives to the scientific data that they're pursuing and the head of the ipcc said last

week -- said this past week in copenhagen that essentially that group as a whole based on its many years of gathering data does not feel that its conclusions have been in any way undermined by the e-mails of the british institute. and it does appear that in copenhagen where there are many debates taking place over how to come up with a policy to curb co 2 emissions, and those are debates and we see a lot of dispute over what the policy would look like. it doesn't seem that any of the major players are disputing the science. it doesn't seem that that's really in the room, that that's really part of the debate. you're calling on the united states and the rest of the world to essentially stop the process of making this policy.

again, how realistic is it that you would go to copenhagen and have leverage with that point of view? >> well, i'm a congressman in the minority in terms of political. the makeup of the congress right now. but i still have a voice, and i have a knowledge base. i've been -- i probably conducted more hearings on climate than most members of congress. more so than anybody in the current congress. i think i've got an open mind. again, i want an environment that's as benign and supportive of mankind as is possible to be. but i also want a modern lifestyle that i have hot water in the morning and air conditioning in the summer in texas and i can hop in a private vehicle and take my

family or myself where i want to in a convenient, comfortable way. i don't want to go back to the 1870s. where my great grand parents lived on a dryland cotton farm in texas with know running water, no electricity and their power source was their muscles or animal power. i don't want to do that. and an 83% reduction from the baseline of crmb o 2 emissions in the united states, you couldn't burn folve fuels in the united states in 2050. it can't be done. so i'm not going to accept at face value some of these claims until they're proven. and if these models are as great as they say they are, open them up. show us the variables. show us the data set. show us the -- there's one of these e-mails that one of these guys is deathly afraid theas going to be asked to show the

parameters of his model and some of the al ga rhythms in the model. again, if you're very confident that you're absolutely right, if you're very confident that your data is right, make it public. now, why won't they do that? dr. man n at penn state is yet to make his data sets public. why not? what's he hiding? why is he and these e-mails talking about deleting things? why are they saying that we're going to subvert the freedom of information act? if they're so certain they're right, make it open and transparent. and when you talk about thousands of scientists, most of those are not original creator thinkers. they're implementers, they're facilitators. there are only maybe 50 to 100 in the world that are at the top tier and more and more it's

appearing that they've engaged in either a conscious effort to with hold the truth from the world, or maybe they're just deciding without real quiesing it that they've become so ideologically committed that they've lost track of the true scientific method. i don't know. but it's something that really does need to be investigated. and i don't make any apologies for trying to get that investigation started. >> bringing this back to capitol hill for a moment, congressman. have you spoken to any members of the house who voted for the climate bill when it came before the chamber in june who based on the allegations you've raised and others have raised about these e-mails may be

reconsidering their support? >> there are a number that i've talked to that if the vote were today they would vote differently. but that's primarily based on the reaction they got in their districts when they went home in august. i have not had a direct conversation since these e-mail scandal broke a week ago. i would think that would make more members hesitent, but i haven't had a direct conversation with anybody about that. that voted for the bill. i have asked congressman markie to join me in trying to get a joint effort to get whatever the data is, let's get it and  make sure we agree on the data before we have arguments over the policy implications of that data. i have had that conversation with the chairman. >> quick followups. >> in terms of action on capitol hill, and congressman markie did say last week that

he is planning to hold hearings investigating the details of these e-mails. and in terms of other actions on capitol hill, i'm wondering, you and some of your colleagues have also been very unhappy about the epa findings this past week, essentially determining that co 2 is a hazardous pollutant and the federal government has the right -- setting up the federal government to be able to regulate co 2 with or without action from congress. and i'm wondering if you are having discussions with your colleagues about trying to take some sort of legislative action to veto or repeal or undercut that decision. >> well, firp the chairman of the committee, i would be doing that. but as the ranking member i don't have the votes to make it happen. i think the e.p.a. conducted a

faulty, almost sue per fluse endangerment protocol. i don't think that they've really done due diligence. i think it's laughable if you read the suppressed report by dr. carlen his little group within the e.p.a. is supposed to serve as something as a watch dog and a fact checker. his executive summary, he says there are eight or nine reasons that it falls on its face. if any one of these reasons is right. and yet, he was not allowed to put that in the record. he wasn't allowed to present that to the decision makers at the white house. in fact, he was told to shut up and stop working on it. that's not proper procedures, the regular order. so i was here when the clean air act eamts were passed in the early 90s.

we were very clear in that legislation that we were regulating certain criteria pollutants. we talked about co 2 and decided that was not something that should be covered by the clean air act. it's not designed to. the limits in the clean air act don't apply to co 2. and, again, it's odor less, colorless, tasteless, it's not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. we create it as we talk back and forth. so -- and if you go beyond that, on a net basis there's ample evidence that warming jenically, however it's caused, is a net benefit to mankind. so i think the first serious lawsuit brought against it, it will fall on its face. >> sara palin has recently been

speaking more to these issues. specifically, she had an op ed in the "washington post" largely about the climate e-mails and even said the president should boycott the climate talk. what effect do you think she will be having on this debate? >> well, i would -- i like sara palin as a person and i respect her as a former governor and as a republican leader. i would disagree with her. i think the president's got every right to go to copenhagen. he's made environmentalism a part of his agenda. i've got no problem with that. i would hope president obama is open-minded enough to admit that we might need to take a step back or at least take a time out while we check the facts, so to speak. but the united states is the world leader. the president is the leader of the united states. i'm appreciative that he is going. i'm glad that speaker pelosi is going to copenhagen. i disagree with her policies

but i do agree that the united states needs to be engaged and i just hope that we're engaged in a fashion that doesn't wreck our economy and doesn't do thing that is really end up not helping the environment. >> you've clearly outlined this. but why are you so skeptical? >> because i'm an engineer, and i do not believe the facts proved the case. there's so many facts that go the other way. but one of them is that co 2 is such a trace gas. the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. the dominant -- even the climatologist who think co 2 is a major factor admit that the largest factor in controlling temperature is water vapor and cloud formation in the atmosphere. and the ipcc models use plug-in variables for clouds because they can't model clouds.

so they kind of cook the books when they determine the outcome they want and then put in the cloud parameter to give them the outcome. things like that. >> congressman joe barton, republican of texas, thanks very much for joining us. >> always an honor. >> and we continue the conversation. you will be in copenhagen this week. what's the story line that you're going to be tracking? >> i will be focusing very closely on one pivotal play anywhere all the talks, and that is the u.s. congress. everyone will be looking to the u.s. to see what they will be promising. and that will happen in president obama's speech. he will make a commitment that the u.s. will cut greenhouse gas emissions, that it will contribute to a global fund of several billion dollars to help

poor nations adapt to the climate change. u.s. negotiators will make much more concrete promises. but i think the rest of the world really understands that none of that can come to pass unless it can really move through and pass the u.s. congress. and specifically the senate. and, you know, they're so pittal. i think a lot of other countries will be uncomfortable signing on to any kind of global agreement unless they think that the u.s. congress will pass something along those lines. and members of congress who will be there will be uncomfortable about proceeding with a bill unless something comes out of copenhagen. so i'll really be watching to see how much these sides really believe that the other one is going to follow through. and i think that will have a lot to do with the success or failure of whatever agreement they come up with. >> and congressman barton was skeptical of anything passing the senate. but there was some movement among three senators. kennedy, lieberman, -- kerry,

lieberman, and graham. >> these three have been working together that can attract the all important 60 votes in the senate. there's a general recognition that the legislation that came through the senate environment public works committee could not reach that threshhold. and what those three senators did was release a sort of very broadly worded framework of their plans. but it included one very interesting piece of information which is that they said they're endorsing 2020 u.s. greenhouse emission cut of 17%. now, that's the same thing that the house endorsed. however, that is several percentage points lower than what had been the other big senate climate bill. so i think there's a sort of broad recognition that in order to sort of get some traction in the senate they're going to have to meet the concerns of members of both parties, including some democrats that a 20% cut by 2020 is going to be too heavy a lift. so i think one thing to watch is how they